well i got really board and it was midnight while i was wrighting this essay for my english class, so i spent a paragraph talking about this comic...take whatever enjoyment you can out of thisPS: reference in red

Introduction

Over the course of history, man’s relationship to animals has changed. They have gone from enemies to sources of food to domesticated friends. And ever since animals have been used by man for food or keep as pets, people have wondered what rights these animals have.Now this is a very complex question, and with all complex questions, there come people who have very extreme views on a subject. These extremists usually exist on the less popular side of an issue, in this case giving animals rights. Now like all unpopular views, it is hard to convince others to see your side of it. So what do these extremists do? They resort to publicity stunts.These stunts range from rallies, to alternative to meats sales, to freeing monkeys, to arson. Now the legality of the latter two raises a question of whether or not any of these stunts should be legal. Some would say these stunts are a simple way to express themselves and are protected by the first amendment. Others would say these stunts violate their rights to privacy and figurative stunts aren’t constitutionally protected.

Arguments against extremist stunts

Groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals(PETA) or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty(SHAC) do some crazy things. And what are these stunts for? Well evidently they want to forcibly convert people to a vegan lifestyle, stop animal testing, and make having pets illegal. Does any of this sound reasonable? Probably not. Espetially since PETA’s cofounder Alex Pacheco said “‘Arson, property destruction, burglary, and threats are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal rights cause’” (Extremist animal right…). Now it may be true that most of these stunts are small and achieve nothing but distract people, they do get weird and downright offensive. One of these stunts was when they dressed in KKK robes to protest the American Kennel Club’s selective breeding for a “master race” of purebred dogs. This is not the aim of the AKC as a whole and only a few owners do this. Also, it seems overly offensive to anyone involved. No one wants to be called a racist, or “breedist” as it may be in this case (Top 10 Insane…). PETA has had some interesting stunts, but some push what should be legal. One of these stunts being the kinky cow demonstration. This in and of its self would be fine, giving an opinion on the horrible treatment of circus animals. But this stunt went a little overboard by taking place in a residential area. Doing this in an area with children seems irresponsible. This type of thing seems like something no child should be exposed to by anyone outside of parents, if that. (Top 10 insane…) To sum up PETA’s activities, they may do some random stunts, but nothing compared to SHAC. This group is the true definition of extremists. SHAC has burned cars and homes, pressured corporations into dropping stock, and lied about corporate abuses. This caused the Huntingdon Life sciences to go from a stock value of $15 a share to $1 a share. These actions pretty much destroyed the company and put the employees out of house and home, literally. (Best, Kahn) Also other groups aren’t slackers, they have protested by taunting employes. These groups have “painted on their homes and cars, doorbells rung repeatedly, and widows smashed or doors broken down while family were in the house” (Extremist Animal Rights…) does this seem like another hate group called the KKK to anyone.Lastly, how do animals feel? Well if you look at how a dog looks at their owner, you can see the love in their eyes. This love would be destroyed by PETA’s patented dog napping stunts. This can be shown, reliability aside, by the web comic “Housepets!”. This may be a strange source, but the story arc “Sinister Shadow” show PETA kidnapping a dog and has the dog’s thoughts on how he’s being torn from the things he loves. It also has a member of PETA realizing this and saying “was the part where we righted an injustice before or after we deprived him of everything he loves”. Adding to this, pet napping is illegal. (Griffin, arc 19)

Arguments for extremist actions After the last section, the legality and ethics of these groups is up to question. But to refute that, these groups are mostly just harmless protesters on a mission, and what’s more American. Most of what PETA does is anything within their legal right to do. One of the most effective was the breast-milk ice cream sale. This was a simple example that showed how we needn’t rely on animals for our milk or other dairy products. They gave full discloser of the source on the milk, got a doctor to check that she was healthy, and actually sold some ice cream. (Top 10 insane…) To go farther with PETA, they do have some good ideals. They find companies who abuse animals, unscientifically killing them, for minimal research. They have been able to convince the government to improve containment and treatment of animals without even doing anything other than protesting and petitioning. (Best, Kahn) Not to say PETA is a slacker though, they are very active in their stunts. They have held “Human BBQ’s” where a person is painted red and put on a fake grill to show how all creatures, man and animal are alike in many ways. These stunts prove some valid points and not all of them have to be Ingrid Newkirk's will, one of the more out their stunts. This contained very specific instructions, like sending her eye to the Environmental Protection Agency to show them PETA is watching. As disturbing as it is, the will does show how PETA finds interesting legal ways to prove their points. (Top 10 insane…)Lastly, is it not their right as an American group to speak out against any injustice that any group, man or animal, may face. They do all their stunts legally and only the truly crazy members commit arson and the like. They in no way represent PETA as a whole or how it works.

Conclusion

Upon reflection, some things have become very evident. First off, PETA isn’t really that dangerous, but SHAC is. Also, groups like SHAC are rare and are only know about because they do crazy and illegal things unlike the other groups. Now their ideals are a bit weird and they may have some interesting means of getting their message across, and that is both legal and shows how Americans get things done. Overall I have to admit that animal rights groups stand for totally bizarre reasons, but as long as their actions stay legal, who cares who they are, they are just people on a mission.

I can't tell if the above post is joking or not but I might as well put my two cents in as well.

I liked it, but it was slightly muddlesome in the body. I had trouble picking up the main topics that should be clearly expressed in the introduction. The conclusion also didn't reflect the intro either. But it really did keep me interested. So... I'd gived it a B at the most if it were to be turned in. (note that I do realize you weren't the one to have written it. I'm just referring to the case if it were submitted.)

Yeah I'm sorta clueless on the mods and stuff too. But anyway, it's still a good essay. I mean it's worth a good grade trust me. I'm just overly critical on any piece of work. I'd like to say it's constructive criticism but sometimes I cripple myself. hahah

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum